|其他题名||The developmental and training studies on inhibitory control for preschoolers|
|导师||施建农 ; 刘彤冉 ; Prof. Albert Ziegler|
|关键词||幼儿 抑制控制 流体智力 认知训练 事件相关电位|
|摘要||作为个体执行功能的核心成分之一，抑制控制（inhibitory control, IC）在幼儿期快速发展。抑制控制对成功的目标导向行为而言很重要，与流体智力关系密切。然而，童年早期关于抑制控制的实证研究很有限。抑制控制包括反应抑制和干扰抑制两种重要的亚类型，在研究中有必要将二者区别开来。本研究将探讨两类抑制控制在幼儿期的发展速度是否相同，增进对抑制控制发展特点的理解。通过探讨童年早期流体智力和抑制控制关系，对抑制控制和高级认知功能间的关系有更准确的把握。紧跟研究领域前沿问题，考查抑制控制的训练和迁移效果。|
研究一对同一组被试采用四种抑制控制任务，分别对4 岁和5 岁幼儿抑制控制发展情况进行横断研究。结果表明，幼儿抑制控制存在两种亚类型，两种类型发展速度不同。在反应抑制（go/no-go 任务和stop-signal 任务）上，5 岁和4 岁幼儿的表现没有显著差异。在干扰抑制（flanker 任务和Stroop 任务）上，5 岁幼儿的表现显著优于4 岁幼儿。无论反应抑制还是干扰抑制，女生都比男生表现出色。之后探讨了幼儿期二者的发展与流体智力（瑞文彩色推理测验，RCPM）发展的关系。结果表明，幼儿的反应抑制和干扰抑制都与流体智力显著相关；干扰抑制和年龄是流体智力良好的预测指标。
在研究一的基础上，我们在研究二和研究三中分别对干扰抑制的智力个体差异和反应抑制的训练进行进一步研究。研究二从行为和脑电（event-related potential, ERP）两方面对5 岁幼儿的干扰抑制能力（flanker 任务）和流体智力（RCPM）的关系进行深入探讨。干扰抑制在行为方面（反应时、正确率）和脑电方面的顶叶P3 都有所体现，一致试次和不一致试次之间差别明显。和低智力组相比，高智力组在左顶叶有更显著的P3 效应。但是N2 效应并没有出现高低智力组之间的差别。这些结果表明流体智力与干扰解决（顶叶P3）而非干扰识别（额叶N2）阶段关系更紧密。
研究三从行为与脑电两方面研究4 岁幼儿的反应抑制能否通过单一反应抑制游戏（平板电脑中的水果忍者游戏）得到训练，以及能否迁移到其他未训练的任务上（Stroop 任务，听觉数字广度测验，瑞文彩色推理测验等）。训练组每天训练15 分钟，每周训练4 天，总共训练三周；控制组每周玩涂色游戏一到两次，每次15 分钟。一系列认知任务（涉及干扰抑制和推理能力）被用来评估反应抑制训练的迁移效应，并且记录在go/no-go 任务上的行为表现和脑电活动。结果表明，反应抑制训练能够提高幼儿在训练任务（水果忍者游戏）上的表现；尽管在未训练的反应抑制任务go/no-go任务的行为表现上的提高没有达到显著水平，只是展现出这种趋势；但是记录的脑电数据表明幼儿在go/no-go 任务上的N2 效应明显提高，不过这种大脑皮层活动水平的变化体现在女孩身上；在考查相关认知结构的未训练任务上（瑞文推理）也体现了反应抑制训练潜在的迁移效应。
|其他摘要||Inhibitory control (IC), as a key subcomponent of individual’s executive function, develops rapidly during the preschool period. Inhibitory control ability is essential for successful goal-directed behavior and is closely linked to fluid intelligence. However, evidence is limited regarding inhibitory control ability during early childhood. Response inhibition and interference control are two main type of inhibitory control, which are necessary to be distinguished in psychological studies. In the present dissertation researches have been carried out to explore the characteristics about two types of inhibitory control in terms of human cognitive development. Furthermore, the relationship between inhibitory control and fluid intelligence has been investigated. At last, the training and transfer effect of inhibitory control were examined.|
Study 1 was a cross-sectional research about the development of inhibitory control in 4 and 5 years old children by four tasks. Results showed that there are two subtypes of inhibitory control with different paces of development. No difference exist in response inhibition（go/no-go task & stop-signal task）between 4 and 5 years old children. Compared to children in 4 years old, children in 5 years old performed better in interference control (flanker task & Stroop task). Girls performed better than boys in both response inhibition and interference control. Then, the relationship between fluid intelligence (Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices Test, RCPM) and inhibitory control were investigated. Result showed that, compared to response inhibition, interference control is a better predictive factor of fluid intelligence.
Based on Study 1, Study 2 and Study 3 focused on intellectual individual difference for interference control and training for response inhibition respectively. Study 2 assessed event-related potentials to examine the relationship between fluid intelligence (indexed by Raven’s Progressive Matrices) and interference control among 22 children who performed a flanker task. One main finding was that differences between congruent and incongruent trials were revealed in the parietal P3 component and the performance (accuracy and reaction time) on the flanker task. When comparing children with lower (low intelligence group) and higher fluid intellectual ability (high intelligence group), the high intelligence group exhibited a larger P3 effect over the left hemisphere. However, no differences emerged between the two groups in terms of frontal N2 effect. These findings demonstrate that fluid intelligence is tightly related to interference resolution (indexed by a parietal P3) but not interference detection (indexed by a frontal N2) at neural level.
Study 3 aimed to determine the training and transfer effects on response inhibition in four-year-old children. Children in the training group (N = 20; 12 boys, mean age 4.87 ± 0.26 years) played “Fruit Ninja” on a tablet computer for 15 min/day, 4 days/week, for 3 weeks. Children in the active control group (N = 20; 10 boys, mean age 4.88 ± 0.20 years) played a coloring game on a tablet computer for 10 min/day, 1–2 days/week, for 3 weeks.
Several cognitive tasks (involving inhibitory control, working memory, and fluid intelligence) were used to evaluate the transfer effects, and electroencephalography (EEG) was performed during a go/no-go task. Progress on the trained game was significant, while performance on a reasoning task (Raven’s Progressive Matrices) revealed a trend-level improvement from pre- to post-test. EEG indicated that the N2 effect of the go/no-go task was enhanced after training for girls.
In conclusion, new evidences about the development of specific types of inhibitory control for preschoolers have been acquired, which enriched the theoretical knowledge in the field. Our studies afforded new empirical evidence about the relationship between inhibitory control and fluid intelligence at behavioral and neural levels. A new research direction about inhibitory control training has been explored by the behavioral and ERP data.
This study is the first to show that pure response inhibition training can potentially improve reasoning ability. Furthermore, for the first time, gender difference of training-induced change in neural activity about response inhibition has now been established among preschoolers. Feasible practice about inhibitory control training has been provided for researchers and educators in practice.
|刘倩. 幼儿抑制控制的发展与训练[D]. 北京. 中国科学院研究生院,2016.|